Olivia's Post on A Conversation Between Shelagh Rogers and Thomas King (2012)

            This week’s reading is an interview with Thomas King who wrote a non-fiction book entitled The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America. The conversation covers his personal take on Aboriginal history and people.  One of the main points that comes across in King’s responses is that there are certain patterns that keep repeating themselves surrounding Aboriginal people.  He attributes the long-standing injustices of this group to ongoing ignorance, power-hungry mindsets and being preoccupied with the present and future.

            King (2012) notes that although his book is a factual piece, it is unapologetically opinionated (and needs to be so). He holds a position on the state of Aboriginal history in that “…it is a history and it’s not…” (2012, p.270). King believes North America has not dealt with their history adequately or appropriately which has resulted in several, terrible consequences.  The focus on the present, and the increasing attention on future conditions, results in not reflecting on the past. He believes this is why no one has learned anything in order to address the conflicts between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. This ‘forgetfulness’ is, in my opinion, the larger part of the pattern that contributes to the making of numerous injustices. The increasing futuristic outlook also creates this threat, for example, the Idle No More, King states, is just another example of the government neglect and that their power is overriding treaties from centuries ago.  Lastly, he makes an important point how it is good that we realize that facts are not always facts but opinions.  I believe that he also deems this realization necessary in order to uncover truths and magnify the tragedies. The author confessed his struggle of working with the facts but it seems like his opinionated, individual view is needed and unavoidable regarding this topic since it is has been so poorly handled.    

            A second, unfortunate pattern that emerges from the inattention to Aboriginal nations is the image of Native people. For such a long time and still today, there has not only been the stereotypical illustration of an Indian wearing feathers and a headdress but also a represented in a beaten, undignified manner.  King presents three versions of an Indian, one being called the legal Indian which he quotes, “…the Indian that Canada is trying to kill. They don’t want no more…” (p.280). This description similarly reflects popular culture’s underlying message of conquering the Indians, getting rid of the culture, race, etc.  King’s other label, Dead Indian, refers to the stereotypical Indian, which I feel would be better suited with the name called ‘imaginary Indian’ as described in Francis’s (1992) article.   

            Another pattern that we have yet to realize and learn from is the effects of power and money on this group.  The author uses an amusing analogy with the coyote and North America; the society has an enormous appetite for all things ‘comfortable’ and those in power recklessly consume whatever they want.  King talks about one of the main ‘cravings’ which is land, and this particularly is a sensitive topic to Aboriginals.  It seems to be a highly valued resource for Native groups, physically and spiritually, and King describes the non-aboriginal approach to obtain this source as careless and aggressive.  The state, in this example, simply has a different view on this resource. This type of disagreement displays the importance of listening to others and achieving a more accommodating mindset.  The present approach of taking away from this group, over-powering it and acting clueless is history repeating itself.

            One of King’s course of action that is valuable touches on the earlier point made on uncovering truths.  If people keep sharing their stories on their personal experiences and views it is one step toward bringing history closer to the forefront.  This will help knock down the stereotypes, bring more consciousness to the present situations and not allow people to forget about this. Although this may seem like a small step, it is in my opinion the necessary one which can be easily practiced in many, many ways.  

 

References:

 

Francis, D. (1992). The imaginary Indian. Vancouver: Arsenal Press.

King, T. (2012). The inconvenient Indian. Toronto: Anchor Press.

Reading note on Totem Poles, Teepees, and Token Traditions: ‘Playing Indian’ at Ontario Summer Camps, 1920–1955 by Sharon Wall

Sharon Wall started this chapter by explaining how the notion of “playing Indian” appeared and how it became popular among white people though they don’t have extreme enthusiasm in it. Therefore, for many who were not seeking wholesale changes of identity, playing Indian part-time would suffice. Summer camp was one site in which this impulse could be readily indulged. And it was also a place where, it was understood, children learned to ‘live like Indians during the camping season.’ Wall takes a critical look at the fascination with playing Indian by exploring camps’ Indian programming and representations of Native people in camp literature. And Wall also attempts to make sense of the curious cultural phenomenon to place the cultural appropriation in a broad historical context. Like the summer camp phenomenon as a whole, the so-called Indian traditions which were part a broader anti-modernist impulse in twentieth-century Ontario, reflected middle-class unease with the pace and direction of cultural change, with a world that appeared to be irrevocably industrial, decidedly urban and increasingly secular. Therefore, at Ontario camps, ‘going Native’ had little to do with seeking a balm for the non-Native experience of modernity. It reflected modern desire to create a sense of belonging, community, and spiritual experience by modelling anti-modern images of Aboriginal life. Wall mentioned in the chapter that clearly Canadians and Americans saw camping as having great transformative power on children, particularly in the middle of the twentieth century. Wall gives the number of American campers who chose Ontario private camps as their campground of choice, perhaps because Canada’s nature represented the ultimate wilderness, and therefore, the most impressive form of nature. Perhaps future historians could take up this point more thoroughly and examine if Americans were playing “Canadian,” because that identity was much more closely connected to nature than the more heavily urbanized and industrialized United States.

I think in the chapter Wall articulated the tendency of Ontario’s camps to “go native” by incorporating the culture and traditions of First Nations into camp programming. I can see that Wall explains how “playing Indian offered children the emotional outlet of intense experience not frequently promoted by modern childrearing experts and standing in contrast to the camps’ simultaneous preoccupation with order and control”. In this sense, “Indians” were considered as close to nature as possible, so it was good to expose to their cultures. However, she also critiques the white, modernist, colonialist fascination of “playing Indian,” and explores the camping movement’s contribution to the ongoing rationalization of colonization through the promotion of negative images of Indian savagery.

One question that came into my mind while reading is that considering children’s performance, why not comparing the children in summer camps and regular residential schools to track children’s development. When white children were sent to “play Indian” while Indian children were forced to embrace modernity or ‘play white’ to some extent. I’m also considering that why white people use the idea of Indians other than anyone else. Is this the process of pursuing their national identity?

Clearing the plains - Daschuk (2013) - June 9 Reading Note - Jenn Bergen

Daschuk, J. (2013). Clearing the plains: Disease, the politics of starvation and the loss of aboriginal life. Regina: University of Regina Press.

Main Argument

In the conclusion to Clearing the Plains, Daschuk (2013) summarizes the thesis of his book: present-day health inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians are rooted in exploitative (and fundamentally racist) economic and political decisions made by settlers and the Canadian state in the early days of colonization.

Supporting Points

Daschuk writes from the understanding that “economic and environmental changes are inseparable” (2013, p. xi), and that “the rise of a capitalist world-economy and the rise of a capitalist world-ecology were two moments of the same world historical process” (Moore as cited in Daschuk, 2013, p. xi). Daschuk (2013) also asserts that this clash of peoples and ecologies was/is fundamentally rooted in the racist ideology of the Canadian state, and it is the “material conditions” (p. x) of this clash that are the foci of his book.

Daschuk (2013) summarizes this history of health inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada as occurring in two phases: the acute infectious diseases phase  prior to the fur trade, and the health disparities that accompanied the signing of treaties between First Nations and the Canadian state. The first phase, which saw almost every First Nations community being affected by small pox to varying degrees, was a result of horizontal trade between the Americas and the relocation of Indigenous groups as a result of the early fur trade (pp. 181-183).

The second phase accompanied the signing of treaties in the West, which entrenched the exploitative relationship between the Canadian state and Indigenous populations through the land reserve system and increased dependency of Indigenous peoples on the State, after the decline of the bison and resulting famine (Daschuk, 2013, pp. 183-184). During 1878 and the early 1890s, tuberculosis, influenza, and various other epidemics decimated on-reserve Indigenous populations and paved the way for food-based population control on the part of the Canadian government (Daschuk, 2013, pp. 184-185).

Daschuk (2013) argues that these two phases entrenched racist ideology that has allowed for historical and current health inequalities in Indigenous Canadians to be ‘acceptable’ by the Canadian public, even though these inequalities are “the direct result of economic and cultural suppression (p. 186). He gives examples of contemporary health concerns, such as limited access to clean drinking water on reserves, and the increasing presence of diseases and suicide in Indigenous communities as the direct results from the policies created in these earlier phases of the Canadian state (pp. 185-186).

Assessment / Critique

Reading sections of this book affirmed the parts of history that were hinted at in the early social studies courses of my elementary school in rural Saskatchewan. We learned about high rates of disease on reserves, about the treaties, and about the transition from a nomadic lifestyle to an agriculturally-based one of Indigenous communities on the prairies, in particular the Plains Cree. Some of the more damming details of these stories were also relayed to us – in particular the use of smallpox infected blankets and the restriction of food supplies in an effort to exterminate Indigenous populations in the face of resistance to the Canadian state through the Riel Rebellion. What this book reinforced for me, however, was the severity of the health-related outcomes through the process of the dispossession of people from land and the expansion of trade into contemporary Canada. The strength of these arguments comes from Daschuk’s extensive research and historical perspective, and in his ability to reliably link present-day health outcomes with historical and ongoing processes of colonization.

It is hard to critique a book that is so masterfully put together. The only thing I could see making it more well-rounded would be more contemporary statistics about the current state of life on reserves in Canada or health outcomes for urban Indigenous peoples. Daschuk does mention many of these, but for the most part, the book still struck me as a ‘history book’ more than one that was making an argument for the purposes of social justice. The questions I am left with are grounded in my curiosity about how this history was suppressed for so long. What were the active forces contributing to the silencing of this awful colonial history? And, more importantly, I wonder: What would Daschuk argue should be done about the historical inequalities that he has so thoughtfully outlined? 

Reading Note #6: The Imagined Indian

            This introductory chapter by Francis (1992) presents the idea of the Imaginary Indian and its ever-lasting legacy in Canadian history. Francis begins by retelling how a visit to Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, “one of the most culturally significant places in the world” and a World Heritage Site, prompted him to question how he had come to believe in an Imaginary Indian. As he walked around the museum on site, Francis is confused that the Indians working at the museum did not at all fit the images of what it means to be and looks like to be Indian that he had learned in schools, books and popular culture.

            “The Indian is the invention of the Europeans” (p. 4). The Indians that we “know” do not actually exist. From the time of Columbus’ arrival in America, there were many different and distinct indigenous cultures, but there were no Indians. The distinct indigenous cultures and peoples were unfortunately grouped together as being the same, and the Other. As Francis writes, “The Indian began as a White man’s mistake, and became a White man’s fantasy” (p. 5). This constructed identity of the Indian has benefited non-Native people for years and the “beauty” of this imagined Indian is that their image can continually changed and reconstructed to be anything non-Natives want it to be. He argues that this books is not about Native cultural history, but rather about White cultural history and the images of Native people that White Canadians have created and taught their children over generations. The greatest strength of this chapter, in my opinion, is Francis’ argument that “there is no such thing as a real Indian” (p. 5). His goal is not to argue or refute the stereotypes but rather to think about “where the Imaginary Indian came from, how Indian imagery has affected public policy in Canada and how it has shapes, and continues to shape the myths non-Natives tell themselves about being Canadians” (p. 6). It is so important to move away from the idea that there is any one, “real” or “legitimate” image of the Indian.

            I appreciated Francis’ explanation at the end of this chapter on terminology. As I was reading the chapter, I questioned his use of the term “Native” as I have come to believe/understand that this is often considered to be a derogatory, offensive term. I believe Francis is quite correct in pointing out “It is part of the legacy of the Imaginary Indian that we lack a vocabulary with which to speak about these issues clearly” (p. 9).

            Though I found this chapter overall to be an interesting read, one critique or point of disagreement is Francis’ argument that (indirectly), we all know there is no such thing as an Indian and that the Indian is the invention of the European. I think it is our hope that this is what we are teaching and learning in schools, but this is far from the case. If it were true, I would like to think our treatment of Native people in Canada would be dramatically different today and that we would not be constantly redefining what it means to be a Native Indian. Though our constructed image of Indians has changed so that Indians fit in our modern world, I believe we still teach and learn that there is “one” particular image of what it means and looks like to be Native.

            As a (history) teacher, this reading/book is immensely useful to my teaching practice and how I would approach teaching about Native history. As Francis discusses, certainly our constructed images of what it means to be Native has changed over the years but the images that we continue to reproduce (and teach) are often still constructed images. It is easy in history class and in our everyday lives to admit the wrongdoings of those who came before us, recognizing our mistreatment Native communities over generations in time but it is much harder to admit that we continue this mistreatment though this exclusion might present differently. This reading leaves me wondering if we will ever move beyond these constructed images of the Indian (in my lifetime)? This book was written in 1992, more than two decades ago yet very little “progress” or “change” has taken place in terms of how we perceive and treat Native people in Canada. I wonder if we will ever get to a point where we no longer feel the need to find out identity as Canadians by differentiating ourselves from the Other, the Indian.

Francis, D. (1992). The imaginary Indian. Vancouver: Arsenal Press.

Kymlicka, W. (2007). ‘Disentangling the debate’. In J. Stein, D. Cameron, J. Ibbitson, W. Kymlicka, J. Meisel, H. Siddiqui & M. Valpy (Eds.), Uneasy partners: Multiculturalism and rights in Canada (pp.137-156). Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Summary of the article:

Will Kymlicka reflects on the potential conflict between religious freedom and equality and the role multiculturalism plays in reinforcing or resolving the conflict.

He begins with a study conducted by Stein who argues that the more space a society allocates to religious freedom, the less space remains for equality rights. Stein sees in multiculturalism a weight that falls on the side of religious freedom and at the cost of equality rights. “Multiculturalism provides a pretext or justification for religious organizations to avoid the broadening and deepening of equality rights” (p. 144) Kymlicka contends that this line of though is not valid, as it rests on a faulty understanding of multiculturalism.

Kymlicka differentiates among three senses of multiculturalism: as a fact; a policy; or an ethos. He argues that the texture of Canadian society shows that multiculturalism is a fact; that multiculturalism is enshrined in law and is recognized in the constitution show that is a policy; but less measurable is multiculturalism as an ethos that shapes the way Canadians think about and discuss issues of diversity. He then argues that multiculturalism as a legal principle and public policy clearly fall into the side of equality rights. In this sense, multiculturalism should be understood as part and parcel of human rights revolution that promotes the universality of human rights.

He also argues that multiculturalism does not give religious organizations and communities broad exemptions from equality rights. Multiculturalism is about the right to be different and to be respected for being different, but because it puts emphasis on equality rights, it delimits the space within which religious communities can pursue their religious rights.

Comments:

I found the distinction Kymlicka makes among the three dimensions of multiculturalism very helpful. I am of the same mind that multiculturalism in Canada is a fact because so many cultures are living next to one another peacefully. This peaceful coexistence is taken for granted in Canada, but in fact the religious or ethnic conflicts all over the globe demonstrate well that different cultures do not necessarily live next to one another if appropriate constitutional, political, or legal measures are not taken. Furthermore, I agree with the author that the legal and political dimensions of multiculturalism (multiculturalism as a policy) constitute a fundamental achievement of the post-war and (post)modern society. Similarly, I concur with the implicit claim of the author that multiculturalism in Canada at a political level has been implemented more efficiently compared to other modern democratic societies. I trust multiculturalism gives in principle the vulnerable citizens and minorities a minimum of legal protection against exclusion or discrimination.

While the first two dimensions of multiculturalism are depicted in rather optimistic terms, the third dimension of multiculturalism, I regret, was not sufficiently addressed in the article. Perhaps this is where a link could be made to the educational system. If acceptance of and respect for diversity is to enter into the minds Canadian citizens, what roles do educational systems should play in preparing individuals for the requirements of such a society?

Last but not least, I am not sure whether the author understands the ‘liberal expectancy’ as a universal or a context specific wish. If he means it in the latter sense, would not the need for its universal applicability end up in a new form of colonization? I believe that liberal democracy is not applicable to all societies (I wish it were!). While I do trust that democratic political systems or welfare states provide the most fertile ground for the integration of individuals in the most number of social spheres, the segmentary differentiation of world political systems requires the development of different form of political system.  

Response # 6 -Daniel Francis (1992)

The imagined identities in Canada

            Daniel Francis begins the Introduction to An Imaginary Indian with an anecdote about his experiences traveling through the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Alberta. There, he observed Aboriginal members of a nearby reserve running the visitors’ center, giving tours and dressed in civilian (modern western) clothing. The mere fact that he experienced shock that the Aboriginal employees were not fulfilling a fantasized stereotype demonstrates how pervasive are the misconceptions and stereotypes about our Aboriginal communities. The question he reflects on is one of which all Canadians need to be cognizant: How had I come to believe in an Imaginary Indian? (Francis, 1992, p. 3).

            In this chapter, Francis makes the important distinction between “Native” and “Indian.” His frequent use of the term “Indian” throughout his writing is to highlight that Native people are not the subject of his book, Indians are. He explains that “this is a book about the images of Native people that White Canadians manufactured, believed in, feared, despised, admired, taught their children…it is the argument of this book that there is no such thing as a real Indian” (Francis, 1992, p. 5).

            So why, in the late twentieth/twenty-first century, do we still have these imagined perceptions? Francis’s anecdote and critique of his own mentality invites us to think about our own imagined perceptions of Aboriginal and other cultures foreign to us. Who put those misconceptions there, and what can we do to change them? There still exists this pervasive stereotype of Natives as being anything other than “respectable-looking…with well-washed unpainted faces, and combed and common hair” (Mair, 1899, as cited in Francis, 1992, p. 3). This is such a patronizing commentary on another culture that it makes it especially heartbreaking that those sentiments are still held over a hundred years later in Canada. The opening ceremonies of the Vancouver Olympics are a great example of how Canada highlights its rich Aboriginal culture only when there is a vested interest in doing so – highlighting it displays Aboriginal pride on a global scale, but only because it shows off the country as having a rich culture and heritage. The sordid history between the Aboriginal communities and the European colonists is withheld.

            Canadians are becoming more aware of why cultural appropriations can be very damaging – they perpetuate the imagined aspects of the culture, either romanticize or vilify them, and in the case of Indigenous cultures, devalue centuries of colonization and oppression. Appropriating art, clothing (especially ceremonial and religious), and colonialist designations (derogatory names, places, etc.) forces the Indigenous values to be seen as trivial when compared to the glorified colonial values.

            I attended a sharing circle led by the Truth and Reconciliation panel at the recent conferences at OttawaU. As many of the Aboriginal and non-aboriginal attendees shared their stories of oppression, hardship and victories, a common advice emerged: there is a strong need for all Canadians to be educated about Canada’s past and present relationship with her Natives and for that knowledge to be used to put agency and autonomy back into the hands of those Natives.

References

Francis, D. (1992). The Imaginary Indian. Vancouver: Arsenal Press.

Yanchyk, B. (2010). Aboriginal Canadians divided over Vancouver Olympics. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8426055.stm